October Fastrack

[Bill Miller]

Sounds good Ty, thanks for the clarification.

[Bob Roth]

On this "send the guy home" attitude, I would like to make a dissenting voice. I believe the average regional racer is lucky to get three races in a year, and given the pasion of competition board for revising rules, I think many well intentioned racers have cars that do not conform to new rules. Ok, tell that guy and his wife, pack it up send it home because his belts are three years old or there isn't a 2nd passenger bar. Liability? so SCCA says that cars that were legal in 2004 are unsafe? Give me a break.

I do not disagree with continually raising the bar on safety, but in the end, the risk is the drivers not SCCA's. I say, for infrigements such as cracked windshield, no second bar or other cage infringements due to rule change, or the dreaded non confirming/non existant sample port etc. It is perfectly appropriate for the steward to inform the driver that his car has a problem, note it in the log book and let the driver decide if he wants to race. Sending them home should be a last, not first resort.

Before somebody gets on their high horse and insists its gotta be this way, go ahead and join a SCCA speed touring series team crew and do a couple of tech's in that series. They really want their cars to make the race. There are many things that are not compliant but safe. Give tech inspectors the latitude to communicate instead of exclude on the first notice. SCCA is in a big enough dogfight to keep drivers comng to its regional races, lets not give people unnecessary reasons to look at other orgs.

[Knestis]

All of the examples you give are things that should be determined during an annual tech.

Anyone who wants to defect to EMRA or ICSCC because they show up without reading the rulebook and without getting an annual before they go racing, and get dinged because they have some significant problem with a rollcage or something similar...?

Whatever. Take some responsibility.

K

[JeffYoung]

True. I showed up at a NASA event with a dead kill switch (didn't know it). They let me run after discovering it. I ran the first day, and then though, if they let me run, what else is out there? I packed up and went home.

People find the GCR intimidating. Other than the roll cage rules, it takes what, perhaps a couple of hours to figure out the rules for IT? Given the stakes -- i.e. serious injury/our lives -- reading and understanding the GCR doesn't seem like too onerous of a responsibility for anyone wanting to run.

[dickita15]

All of the examples you give are things that should be determined during an annual tech.

Anyone who wants to defect to EMRA or ICSCC because they show up without reading the rulebook and without getting an annual before they go racing, and get dinged because they have some significant problem with a rollcage or something similar...?

Whatever. Take some responsibility.

K
[/b]

Wow Kirk, hard line.
I do not believe you annual tech comment is relevant. For 95% of the racers that is not a separate event. They get their annual when they show up for their first event of the year, adding stress to that event.
In most cases I find that Tech and the Stewards try to get the guy on track with a fix by next event notation. That seems like a reasonable course of action. I have never prevented a guy from racing over a fuel port or an undersized tow hook. Expired belts or not having the latest cage update is harder, as a tech worker I have to defer to the steward and they have to decide if they feel they can wave a safety item that might bite them.

[rlward]

James, one of the items you missed was it looks like you and I will be in the same class next year.
[/b]

SO are all the other Shelby Racers OK with with this change? I hope not. I know I am not. I have spent the entire season rebuilding a car to be competitive. New wheel, new engine, new suspension... the whole works. It appears I might have wasted money on the wheels, The weight planning is now out the window. The added weight means more tire wear. The weight is in the wrong place. My list go on and on. I think I was the only one to write the comp board in protest of the change, yet it appears the change may take place anyway.

Please write the board and protest the change. We can beat the miatas with better prep!

Rodger Ward
Cal Club
#18.....till i die
84 Shelby

[Greg Amy]

Rodger, the change is already a done deal, effective next year.

Kirk/Dick: I, too, prefer to take a hard line against folks that don't read the rules, but I'm flexible to a degree. I have no problem with someone showing up for their first annual inspection and getting a one-time signoff for items like passenger door bars and the like. But, don't even bother presenting that logbook to me again until those items are resolved...

[Andy Bettencourt]

SO are all the other Shelby Racers OK with with this change? I hope not. I know I am not. I have spent the entire season rebuilding a car to be competitive. New wheel, new engine, new suspension... the whole works. It appears I might have wasted money on the wheels, The weight planning is now out the window. The added weight means more tire wear. The weight is in the wrong place. My list go on and on. I think I was the only one to write the comp board in protest of the change, yet it appears the change may take place anyway.

Please write the board and protest the change. We can beat the miatas with better prep!

Rodger Ward
Cal Club
#18.....till i die
84 Shelby [/b]

110hp, FWD and struts. That ain't no ITA car. Come on.

[Knestis]

Wow Kirk, hard line. ...[/b]

But to be more clear, I don't philosophically include "a fuel port or an undersized tow hook" to be among "significant problems with a rollcage or something similar." Remember that this whole question started with missing door bars... Didn't it??

I kind of get a kick out of Roger's response. No matter what change is made, it will create a problem for somebody.

K

[gran racing]

Roger, if you're building a car to be competitive, this is the absolute best thing that could have happened to you. Keep up with the well prepped and well driven Miatas, NX2000, Tegs, CRXs? Some of those cars have 150 plus HP at the wheels. In a competitive region, the Charger is set-up to fail in ITA and would never have a shot at being in the front of the field in these races. Being a driver of a car that went from ITA > ITB, I think you'll really enjoy this change.

Wheels? There's a decent market out there for you to sell your wheels and buy some fairly inexpensive ones that are pretty darn lite. ($119 each). Buying new wheels (heck, I'll even include steel junk yard rims in this) and moving to ITB will yield you the best dollar-for-dollar improvement.

Rims Link

[tom91ita]

my car also went from ita to itb (85-87 crx si) and racing is FUN again!

i'm not real thrilled about the nominal 150 # weight increase (went from 1800 for the car in ITA several years ago to 2130 with driver) but there are other cars on track that are not lapping me.

welcome to the B list.

[Matt Rowe]

Wheels? There's a decent market out there for you to sell your wheels and buy some fairly inexpensive ones that are pretty darn lite. ($119 each). Buying new wheels (heck, I'll even include steel junk yard rims in this) and moving to ITB will yield you the best dollar-for-dollar improvement.

Rims Link
[/b]

Too bad those wheels probably won't fit. And don't fool yourself that he is going to lose money selling his current set despite only being a year old.

I think what is most aggravating about this is we just went through a category wide realignment a few years ago and despite raising the question this car was left as is. Now a couple of years latter we are suddenly told the car obviously doesn't fit ITA. If it is so obvious why wasn't it adjusted then?

I personally don't want my car moved, I have a great time racing with the group that I am currently in and would much rather drop some weight and remain in A. But in general this is a good move for this car and besides I already have another car in miind for next season so I won't fight this. But someone dropped the ball on this during the realignment and the car owners have wasted a couple years while it has been sorted out.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So let me get this straight: You would rather stay, yet this is a good overall decision. You would rather stay but you have wasted 2 years? Suspension and engine development is not thrown away because you were doing that all along.

It was looked at during the re-alignment but there were so questions as to what made up the Shelby part of the package. It was put under the microscope when a member officially requested it's move. Nobody dropped the ball, we just moved slowly and with caution on a car we didn't know much about that not many people run. When the request came in, we acted. Sorry if that doesn't hold water for you.

[Matt Rowe]

So let me get this straight: You would rather stay, yet this is a good overall decision. You would rather stay but you have wasted 2 years? Suspension and engine development is not thrown away because you were doing that all along.[/b]

Suspension development? I would feel better about that except you give up an inch of wheel width. That is going to affect the setup, especially on a car that already overheats the tires in a sprint race.

But that isn't my point. Yes, I would rather stay because I like the group I race with in ITA. In a very strong field I can still run with a solid group of cars. Cars that with a little more work on the nut behind the wheel I can aspire to beating. Of course I alreaady made arrangments to move on to a different car precisely because I know that car won't be competitive in ITA.

So as the car will never win an ITA race in a competitive field it stands a really good chance in ITB. So yes it is better for the car overall, I just have no interest in running in ITB. And maybe I am a little annoyed that I am investing a lot more money to change cars only now to be told this car is being moved . The real point is moving a couple years ago when everything was being shuffled makes much more sense. Moving now just throws another wrench into the plans of anyone that has one of these.

110hp, FWD and struts. That ain't no ITA car. Come on.
[/b]

It was looked at during the re-alignment but there were so questions as to what made up the Shelby part of the package. It was put under the microscope when a member officially requested it's move. Nobody dropped the ball, we just moved slowly and with caution on a car we didn't know much about that not many people run. When the request came in, we acted. Sorry if that doesn't hold water for you.
[/b]

The first statement doesn't look like anyone needed it to be put under a microscope, your statement makes it sound like this was a no brainer. As for not many people running them, during the realignment I had repeated contact with you and others on the ITAC and specifically asked about the car. Not once was any information requested about the Shelby package. Again, it feels like this one slipped through the cracks because it wasn't a priority. I can certainly understand how much work was being done at the time and not every car was being research to the same extent. But maybe you can understand why those of us with those cars feel like we were overlooked, in your own words we were. Maybe if five minutes had been taken out of the endless debate on the MR2 you would have had a chance to look at this car.

As for being put under the microscope I had at most a five minute conversation with one of the ITAC members a few months ago. It didn't take long to fill him in on the car and I don't get the sense there was ever any doubt the car should be in ITB. This decision could have been made a couple years back and should have. That's all.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As for being put under the microscope I had at most a five minute conversation with one of the ITAC members a few months ago. It didn't take long to fill him in on the car and I don't get the sense there was ever any doubt the car should be in ITB. This decision could have been made a couple years back and should have. That's all. [/b]

Well your 'sense' would be wrong. This car was 50-50 yes/no before we verified it wasn't 'more' than a 110hp car with silver and blue paint. For me, it was always an ITB car but it's a committee after all.

And you know what? No matter when it got moved, you are going to hit someone during an 'inconvienent' period. It's the right thing to do, it took longer than it should have and I am sorry for those who think it sucks but lets all realize its the right thing in the end - and that is the point.

[ScotMac]

It appears I might have wasted money on the wheels, ...

Please write the board and protest the change. We can beat the miatas with better prep!

[/b]

And, as as fallback, write the board to get common 7" wheels for ITA, ITB, and ITC (I sent my letter in today). That way, no one in the future will be screwed by such a class change.

Yes, it is difficult for the people who have spent good money on the 6"/5.5" wheels, but we should shoot for a better future.

Suspension development? I would feel better about that except you give up an inch of wheel width. That is going to affect the setup, especially on a car that already overheats the tires in a sprint race.

[/b]

Write that letter in support of my common 7" wheel change!!!

[dickita15]

Suspension development? I would feel better about that except you give up an inch of wheel width. That is going to affect the setup, especially on a car that already overheats the tires in a sprint race.

[/b]

The weight reduction, if achievable should help the tire problem more than the 6” wheels will hurt.

[Knestis]

...Write that letter in support of my common 7" wheel change!!! [/b]

Thereby putting the burden for the change on those of us who have invested in 6" wheels. And in my case, that would be FIFTEEN 6" wheels. And unlike moving from 7's to 6's, there would be NO resale market for 14x6 alloys, if 7s become legal.

Point being - as Andy has touched on - classing and specification decisions like this have to be weighed by their value to the category as a whole, balanced against the grief that they cause the folks whose current situations are settled.

THIS is a huge part of the reason that reactive competition adjustments (bleah) are such a horrible idea but caution is still a very good idea, even within the current system. We all want to preserve and advocate for our individual positions and investments but I have to be able to trust that the ITAC will make changes not because someone - or even a lot of someones - want them, but because they are good for the category.

K

[shwah]

The current B cars seem to be able to get by just fine on 6" wheels. Even cars with similar specs to the Shelby.

Of course, I selfishly would like to keep using my 20+ existing 6" wheels.

[gran racing]

That way, no one in the future will be screwed by such a class change.[/b]

Screwed? You've got to be kidding me. The car goes from being in a class where it has no shot to one where it can be competitive. Yeah, you really got screwed on this deal.

Matt, I understand your frustration about the timing, and how you've grown to like racing with the ITA group but come on. Affect setup? So slightly change the camber settings.